Fizkin, Slumkey and Homer Simpson – or when elected and the electorate, became the ruler and the ruled.

So, the UK stumbles towards the 2015 General Election. Another few hours of campaigning and then the big day on Thursday. By early on Friday morning we will know the nation’s likely fate for the next five years – or not! Most pundits are forecasting a tight result with neither of the main parties gaining a working majority; a hung Parliament is thought by many to be the most likely outcome and for weeks now there has been political comment and manoeuvring all focused upon the “what ifs” – who will ally with who and which party will form a liaison with the Scottish Nationalist or with UKIP. I have no crystal ball but my own view is that David Cameron’s Tory party will sneak over the line and win – a result which fills me with dismay. Having said that, part of me says that if the Tories are going to win then let them do it; failure by them to gain an outright majority would, I believe, mean that Cameron is ousted from the leadership and if that happened the Tory party will swing even further to the right – possibly under the leadership of the truly awful and worrying Boris Johnson. In that scenario Cameron is the least bad option.

David Cameron and his mate Lord Rothermere - owner
of the Daily Mail

In this uncertain situation there are, however, a few things that I am pretty certain of – and none of the them are good. Firstly, whatever the result, it will not be by what we might call the popular vote.  Many people will simply not bother maybe because they don’t care or can’t be bothered or, as is the case with many electors, they see it as a waste of time since they view all the parties and politicians as equally bad. This, in a democracy is a worrying trend and if politicians are not concerned and prepared to do something about it then they should be. The result of it is that it is highly possible that whoever “wins” will do so only with a minority of the electorate’s support – as with my Cameron scenario, they being viewed least bad option. Secondly, and following this, if there has been one enduring and consistent message from the electorate during this campaign it is that very many people will indeed cast their vote not for the party that they firmly believe has all the answers or the “right” to government but rather they are the least bad option. Again, that is a worrying scenario – neither of the two major parties has spoken with an authoritative voice and spelled out a narrative that inspires confidence in the electorate – each party, it seems is afraid to lose rather than setting out  a policy that will bring victory. In short they are cancelling each other out both playing negative games. Thirdly, as the campaign has continued, the name of the game has been personalities rather than policies; the Tories have vilified Labour leader Ed Miliband, Scottish nationalist leader Nicola Sturgeon has appeared to be superwoman (even though she will not actually be standing for election!), Boris Johnson has lurked in the Tory background like some political bogey man waiting for David Cameron to slip up and David Cameron himself has been very cagey about appearing on TV in leadership debates, perhaps knowing that his shortcomings and those of his party might be exposed in such a scenario. And finally, because of the emphasis on  personality and the negative thrust of the campaigning there has been little real questioning of policy; in my view, we are sleep walking into the next government – whoever forms it.

The Barclay brothers - owners of the Daily Torygraph.
Opps sorry! - the Daily Telegraph!

This issue of questioning of policy has a number of aspects. There are, of course, many people of all political persuasions who will vote for one party whatever: because their parents always voted that way, because their particular circumstances dictate a particular political leaning, because they have always voted that way. But increasingly, as the demographics of the population changes, we are told that there are far more floating voters or people whose circumstances have changed so that they might vote differently than previously. Against this backdrop and against the backdrop of the complex global world in which we live it would seem to me to be critical that we all know what each party stands for and why we should vote for them. To ensure the future of democracy and to use our vote wisely the electorate should be well versed in the issues, the problems and the potential solutions  posed by our leaders of whatever party or belief. Nor should be afraid to make our views known or question and ask for specific clarification of party policy or the views of those seeking our vote on Thursday. Not to do is a dereliction of our duty as voters. Generally, however, the majority do not take such an active interest. Votes are cast without too much real thought – in the end so many are cast as the result of personal prejudice, brain washing by the media or politicians or simple lack of awareness. It is an undeniable truth that political parties are often reluctant to be questioned: during this campaign, for example, the Tory party has banned the Guardian newspaper from its policy briefings – these have only been supplied to the right wing press: the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, the various Rupert Murdoch journals etc. Clearly Conservative Central Office do not want awkward questions being asked by those who might oppose them. We rely instead upon the pundits, the media to tell us what we should do – and the very frightening thing is that the majority of the electorate,  it seems, too often unquestioningly accept the media view. Too many in the electorate can’t be bothered to think for themselves, they allow their views and their votes to be  guided by the latest headlines in the popular press. A few years ago the tabloid newspaper “The Sun” proudly boasted after the general election “It was the Sun what won it” – and it was probably true. Rupert Murdoch’s tabloid clearly wielded a huge influence on the outcome and his headlines and narrative in the days leading up to the election clearly influenced the result. It is not, therefore, a coincidence that party leaders of all persuasion court the media moguls. In the UK  the media – and especially the national press – are overwhelmingly right wing and thus generally supportive of the Tory party. As commerce becomes more global and  interlinked how could it not be otherwise – Murdoch (The Sun, The Times), the Barclay brothers (owners of the Daily Telegraph), Lord Rothermere (Daily Mail) are high profile people in the corporate world with fingers in many corporate pies,  not just the press. They all have a vested interest in the sort of policies promoted by the Conservative party. Given this situation it is not surprising that Tory policy generally gets a “good press” in the majority of our newspapers.  Nor is it surprising that the Tory party often criticise the more balanced BBC as having a left wing bias against them. And we should not be at all surprised, for example, that when an issue like the vast and growing inequalities in both the UK and the wider world is an issue then the right wing are less than enthusiastic about  it. Growing inequality is perceived and acknowledged by politicians across the world, economists, religious leaders, sociologists, academics, educationalists, health professionals and the rest as a  time bomb and a blight on the welfare of billions. It is also viewed as economically  damaging to the welfare of nations. Our own society here in the UK is one of the most unequal in the world - and becoming more unequal b y the day.

When Labour, in its manifesto, said they would 
make taxation fairer by closing the "non-doms" 
tax loophole the Telegraph launched a campaign
against Labour and an especially vitriolic tirade
against leader Ed Miliband. They neglected, however, 
to tell their readership that their owners - the 
Barclay brothers - were themselves "non-doms".

So important is this viewed that inequality was this year made the focus of the Davos world summit attended by Presidents, Prime Ministers and the great and good of politics, economics, business and society at their recent summit meeting. Mark Carney – governor of the Bank of England - at the summit - called inequality “the greatest threat to growth”  so it was not surprising that the summit concluded that reducing inequality throughout the world should be their number one priority and that something must be done; nations should take proactive steps individually and cooperatively to tackle it. Various initiatives were set out and everyone felt good. And yet, just a few weeks later the Financial Times in its leader on the respective election manifestos of the main parties was openly critical of the Labour Party's stance on the issue. It said:“the fundamental weakness in Labour’s plans” is that “Mr Miliband is preoccupied with inequality”.  So much for inequality then!  On the other hand FT praised Cameron and the Tories for having the “political courage” to “shrink the state” and for consequently reducing the tax burden. That is clearly more in sympathy with FT readers; it is also worrying since both policies (reducing tax which tends to benefit the rich most and shrinking the state) are known to play a part in increasing levels of inequality. And it doesn't stop there! - take a look how the FT's “How to Spend It”  magazine, in this election week, suggests their readers might spend their wealth gained from the lower taxes accruing from our austerity, hitting the most vulnerable, reducing investment in public services and  cutting back the state (and so magnifying the inequalities between the haves and the have nots). Forget the fact that our hospitals are in crisis or our care for the most vulnerable is becoming almost unsustainable  – don’t think about, it the FT softly whispers in your ear; you can salve your conscience about the poor and vulnerable by spending £115 on a Turnbull and Asser traditional tie or  £1,250 on a bottle of "A Goodnight Kiss" perfume. Your good lady could use her perfume when she wears her stylish pleated Tulle shirt dress - only £1995. And if that doesn't satisfy you how about a retro style mahogany motor boat  - depending on the model and the size of your tax avoidance you can get one at a knock down price ranging from £100,000 to £500,000. And for that odd afternoon when you have nothing to do why not take tea at "The View From the Shard" - it's a snip at £130 per person. It would go nicely as you view your Katharine Pooley Salta Box which costs only £1260 . And I wonder if the £5295 per person balloon trip in Myanmar (Burma to ordinary folk like you and me!) might grab your attention and your wallet. So much, as I say, for inequality and the role of the Tory media machine. Are we really all in it together?

Don't worry about the welfare of billions across the world suggests the Tory media machine. Don't be distracted by "Red Ed" Miliband and his"preoccupation" with that silly and dangerous notion "inequality" says the FT. Forget what virtually every world expert and authority says of the danger and effects of inequality because  you've got Tory tax cuts and you're entitled to them so chill out and spend, spend spend.  Choose from our selection of "worldly pleasures" says the FT. " Go on - you're worth it"says the Tory media machine (or is that the Tory manifesto?) "and the vulnerable, the poor and the disadvantaged aren't .They're not your equals, not the same as you. You're superior and more deserving; they're simply scroungers who would not know what to do with a 'peekaboo bag'. That's life - they should get over it." 

It’s all very reminiscent of the corrupt election described by Dickens in his Pickwick Papers: the  election is being held in the constituency of Eatanswill (note Dickens’ name for the constituency suggesting the rottenness and greed of the system!) and the description illustrates contemporary elections not too far, I would suggest, removed from today. Maybe we do it a bit more cleverly but in essence the same themes run deep  The candidates are Mr. Fizkin and Samuel Slumkey from the Blue and Buff parties respectively. Mr. Perker - Slumkey's agent - is explaining to Mr. Pickwick the plans to get votes for Slumkey:

'You have come down here to see an election - eh? Spirited contest, my dear sir, very much so indeed. We have opened all the public-houses in the place. It has left our opponent nothing but the beer-shops  masterly policy, my dear sir, eh?' The little man smiled complacently, and took a large pinch of snuff.

'And what is the likely result of the contest?' inquired Mr. Pickwick.

'Why, doubtful, my dear sir, rather doubtful as yet,' replied the little man. 'Fizkin's people have got three-and-thirty voters in the lock-up coach-house at the White Hart.'

'In the coach-house!' said Mr. Pickwick, much astonished.

'They keep 'em locked up there till they want 'em,' resumed the little man. The effect, you see, is to prevent our getting at them. Even if we could, it would be of no use, for they keep them very drunk on purpose. Smart fellow, Fizkin's agent  very smart fellow indeed.

'We are pretty confident, though,' said Mr. Perker, his voice sinking almost to a whisper. 'We had a little tea-party here, last night  five-and-forty women, my dear sir  and gave every one 'em a green parasol when she went away. Five and-forty green parasols, at 7/6d each. Got the votes of all their husbands, and half their brothers. You can't walk half a dozen yards up the street, without encountering half a dozen green parasols.'

'Is everything ready?' said Samuel Slumkey to Mr. Perker.

'Nothing has been left undone, my dear sir. There are twenty washed men at the street door for you to shake hands with; and six children in arms that you're to pat on the head, and ask the age of. Be particular about the children, my dear sir. It always has a great effect, that sort of thing.

'And perhaps if you could manage to kiss one of ''em, it would produce a very great impression on the crowd. I think it would make you very popular.'

'Very well,' said Samuel Slumkey, with a resigned air, 'then it must be done. That's all.'

'Arrange the procession,' cried the twenty committee-men.

The election at Eatanswill - a contemporary print. Is it so very
different today? even in those days it was about "buying" your
vote rather than discussing a coherent policy

There was a moment of awful suspense as the procession waited for Samuel Slumkey to step into his carriage. Suddenly the crowd set up a great cheering.

'He has come out,' said little Mr. Perker.

Another cheer, much louder.

'He has shaken hands with the men,' cried the little agent.

Another cheer, far more vehement.

'He has patted the babies on the head,' said Mr. Perker, trembling with anxiety.

A roar of applause that rent the air.

'He has kissed one of 'em!' exclaimed the delighted little man.

A second roar.

'He has kissed another."

He's kissing ''em all!' screamed the little gentleman. And, hailed by the deafening shouts of the crowd, the procession moved on.

Ah! A royal baby - and the Tory media machine
 is in overdrive and has already made up its mind 
who the baby would vote for.  And it will brainwash 
your mind  too if you allow it.

I’m sure that were Dickens alive today he could/would write something equally scathing and pointed about our modern day equivalents of Fizkin and Slumkey! I’m absolutely positive that David Cameron, Boris Johnson et al would all suffer under his penmanship. And I wonder what he would have made of the opportunities missed by our current politicians to be seen with the new royal baby –  Princess Charlotte! This week we have had a royal baby born in the UK – Princess Charlotte. The press and the wider media have gone into ecstasies about it. The child and her parents have, in one fell swoop, gained god like significance – their taste, good breeding, marvellous pedigree, and overall excellence are so obvious to all, much of the media has hinted. We mere mortals can only stand and gasp and consider our own shortcomings! We have had unedifying scenes of hundreds, perhaps thousands people paying “homage”, draped in Union flags and wearing party hats standing for hours outside the private hospital hoping to catch a glimpse of the royal couple and pledging an oath fealty to this new born child and its rich parents.

And the irony is that these ordinary people, could not begin to afford the night (£6700 plus per night) in the hospital enjoyed by the expectant, mother and many of them would not be able, because of the continuing decline in health service provision, to see their own GP for an everyday  but urgent appointment without waiting for several weeks. It is inequality, indoctrination and propaganda  in its rawest form and sadly the electorate accept it willingly. We are, all too often, unthinking sheep impressed by the glamour and the clever words of the political spin doctor, the royal celebrity or the scheming editor. I said, at the top of this blog, that I suspected that in this tightly contested election the Tories would creep home; when I read of the royal birth I was convinced of it. Just as in Dickens’ time nothing pleases the electorate than a baby, a  royal baby to boot is ideal. One could almost believe that it was made to order, specially conceived to ensure that the Queen’s distant cousin, David Cameron’s  future is assured. Oh.....why am I so cynical?

Yep - they've already been brainwashed and swallowed the
Tory media message.The unthinking led by the unscrupulous

But in the end, and as I have long argued, we get the politicians and the government  that we deserve. As a head teacher for whom I once worked always said (at the beginning of each staff meeting) – “If I don’t hear any objections then I shall assume that you all agree” If we fail to ask questions and make demands then we are treated as sheep. If we are content with the right wing media reinforcing prejudice and doing our thinking for us then so be it. If we are happy to let Rupert Murdoch, the Barclay brothers, Lord Rothermere, multinationals, global lobbyists and the rest influence our government because we can’t be bothered then we will reap the harvest. And in the long term it will be a terrible harvest that we or our children will regret.

There is another dimension to all this - and I believe one that is becoming increasingly critical as the world becomes more globalised and complex and politics open to greater influence by the media and those who would seek power. It is an area that many are unwilling to admit, but I believe it is there in the background - and growing. What is it? In brutal terms it is the electorate's ability to make informed and wise choices and make sense of the wealth of information and influence that is out there. I don't mean by this that everyone should make the same decisions as I - that would soon lead to a totalitarian state of whatever complexion. But it is vital that everyone is informed enough and bothered enough able to reach a considered decision that reflects their own views on important issues, that reflects their own circumstances and needs at the time and for the foreseeable future, and which, importantly, reflects their feelings about the future needs and problems facing the country - and how these might best be met. For what must not be forgotten is that our general election is not primarily to elect a Prime Minister to even as government. It is to elect a Parliament from which a government and PM will emerge and, as such, the Parliament must be a true reflection of the feelings, beliefs, needs  and ambitions of the country as a whole through every individual vote. Sadly and increasingly there seems an increasing number of potential voters who are unable to make wise decisions that reflect these needs, ambitions and beliefs - it may be because  they can't be bothered or worryingly because they simply don't care to find out the issues upon which they might make their choice. In this situation then future of the nation is increasingly in the hands of people who either don't vote, don't care or vote unwisely because they are confused by the whole prospect. And given that scenario it very, very easy for those that would influence us to to do so. This was alarmingly brought home to me when a few days ago when I read some of the many dispiriting comments on Twitter:

•  Politics is a big blurr to me........ Ive still no idea who to vote for
•  Iv never even voted........as don't understand it
•  It's easy....Google vote match, you take a little quiz and it tells you which party matches your views......

In those few words one has it all: no knowledge of what the issues are and what the respective parties represent; not voting because they simply don't understand it; and referring to Google - an international enterprise that may or may not have "interests" in who wins the election - for guidance. We should be very worried.

In his book “The Price of Civilization”  American academic and economist  Jeffrey Sachs forcefully discusses what he calls “the epidemic of ignorance”. Briefly, he suggests that in America at least (but, I think, this is equally true of the UK), the growth of untrammelled commercial TV and its “race to the bottom” programming based upon lowest common denominator entertainment rather than instructive public education, the growth in internet use  and, at the same time, the role of newspapers has meant that his fellow citizens are increasingly ignorant of basic facts about important issues.  They are therefore, he argues, open to influence. He comments “It would be a profound irony if the new information age coincides with the collapse of the public’s basic knowledge regarding key issues that we confront as individuals or citizens.”  He goes on “The insulated mindset of individuals who know precious little history and civics and never read a book or visit a museum is fast becoming a common, shame free condition”. Sachs argues that ignorance can threaten the very soul of the society. “....when the country must grapple with complex choices about taxes, spending, military involvement and outlays and all the rest, the lack of basic knowledge becomes dangerous. A poorly informed public is much more easily swayed by propaganda and much less able to resist the dark manoeuvrings of special interest groups that pull the strings in Washington.”  Sachs is unquestionably correct. Noam Chomsky makes a similar observation in  “Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media”. Chomsky suggests that the media’s function is to “....amuse entertain and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs and codes of behaviour that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society.” And, says Chomsky,  “In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfil this role requires systematic propaganda.”

Newspapers like The Guardian and the Washington Post 
consistently warn against unscrupulous politicians,organisation and 
governments who are keen to influence you and infringe 
your rights. Sadly too few listen - and then complain later 
when they realise what they have lost 

It does not require a mind as brilliant as  Sachs or Chomsky’s to make the connection here: propaganda thrives when those it seeks to influence are ignorant or compliant or unquestioning. Propaganda doesn’t like an alert electorate,  critical thought, complex ideas or questioning for its short comings are too easily found out.  So, ff the electorate is increasingly unable grasp the issues or unwilling to understand or simply doesn’t care then democracy is indeed under threat. Two centuries ago Edmund Burke the Enlightenment philosopher  reminded everyone “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”  and if the world is increasingly populated by Homer Simpson clones uncaring or unable or unwilling to ask pertinent and perceptive questions or use their knowledge and minds to consider and make meaningful judgements upon what they are presented with by politicians and the media then there is much to fear in the future.

Last night Pat and I sat down and watched the “fly on the wall” documentary “Citizenfour” about Edward Snowden who a couple of years ago leaked  the NSA security documents to the world and is now living in Russia – much to the consternation of western security chiefs. The film was an impressive piece of work – especially so since it was not acted or hyped up Hollywood style – as it laid bare the deceit of US security organisations and indeed our own UK systems. Sadly, it also laid bare the moral poverty of politicians and those in some position of leadership – top ranking generals, Presidents  and their ilk – where lying seemed as easy as breathing, even under oath. It made for enthralling, if depressing, viewing. But of all the things seen and heard a few words stand out like a clarion call and seem apposite at this election time. When asked by Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald why he was making the disclosures Snowden quietly replied that he increasingly believed that the system in the USA was no longer based on the principles of the “elected and the electorate, but of the ruler and the ruled”. I would argue that this is even more true in the UK since we do not have a constitution to give a basic measure of protection to ordinary citizens and we have a much more  firmly established class structure to keep ordinary people "in their place".

Homer Simpson - or is it you?

The  massive infringement of civil liberties and the everyday manipulation of basic  rights, the disdain that government and those in positions of power and influence (security and military agencies, global business concerns, parts of the media and the like) that were, and are, taking place became manifestly obvious in Snowden's leaked government files and proved  the truth of his perceptive comment - we are indeed becoming rulers and ruled. So, as we approach this election it is critical that we do not sleepwalk, Homer Simpson like, into a further relinquishment of our basic rights and we must ensure that we use our vote wisely. If past experience is anything to go by I do not hold out any great hopes.